Brothers Doug and David Blank discuss the issues of the day. One is a Christian, ER doctor, and member of the tea party; the other is an atheist, computer scientist, and liberal arts professor. How did this happen, and what do they have to say?

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The War on Terror

Stephanie:
Hi Uncle David, it's Stephanie here. I hear a lot about these debates that occur between my dad and you, and I've always been interested in the topics brought up, so I thought I could finally contribute to the blog! I wanted to know what your thoughts are on the recent terrorist attacks committed by Daesh (ISIS) and the idea of Syrian refugees coming to the United States.

David:
Welcome Steph! So, you're the one person who reads the blog!
Good topic.One of my favorite sayings is, "It's not that simple". And when it comes to the Middle East, it couldn't be more true. People (especially politicians) like to have simple sound-bite answers to problems. But, as your dad and I have illustrated, the answers are often more complicated or nuanced.

The Paris attacks, coupled with the downing of the Russian aircraft, appears to have galvanized a lot of different players around the globe to join together against ISIS. They may have pushed things too hard, and now will face a backlash from all sides. Those who live by the sword...

The refugees have become an issue that is a bit political grandstanding mixed with some legitimate security concerns. The refugees that are re-located to the US are unlikely to ever find their way back to Syria or Libya. They will likely be here to stay, mainly for logistical reasons. And that's fine. Our country is made up of folks from all over the world, blended into the fabric of the country. But, would it be better to create a space for these people in or near their homeland? We need to have a broader discussion with all of the countries throughout the Middle East, including the refugees themselves.

After all, one of the attackers in Paris, was a Syrian refugee, and also an ISIS terrorist. It is not an unreasonable position to take to welcome refugees, but only if you can screen them to the best of your ability.

Would you agree?

Stephanie:
I'm a big supporter of the blog! I completely agree with you about this issue not being simple whatsoever. One of my friends said, "It isn't going to be a one sentence answer, but there is a solution."

I cannot answer you on whether it would be more beneficial to have refugees closer to their home, but at the current time I think that they are just running from the absolute mess that is Syria and trying to find somewhere, anywhere, to stay.

I think it is understandable that certain politicians want to screen refugees. but you have to wonder who to screen, and who not to screen. Although it is true that one of the Paris attackers was posing as a Syrian refugee, there were many of the attackers who were homegrown (I believe one was from Belgium). So, the question is, should we show the same apprehensiveness to Syrians coming into our country as, say, the French?

David:
To answer your question, let me first pose a question. If the police are chasing a caucasian crime suspect, and he runs into a crowded building completely occupied by a crowd of African-Americans, should the police have to stop each and every African-American for questioning, or can they just hone in on the single, white person in the room?

Stephanie:
I don't understand the analogy because terrorists can be white, black, middle-eastern, muslim, christian, jewish, female, male, gay, straight, and every other thing you can think of. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, so I ask again.. who should we be screening? Syrians are not the only people who were found to be terrorists, anyone can be, and many different people have been. So what should we do about this? We can't reject just Syrian refugees who come into America and yet there is no specific person we should be rejecting because no type of person falls under the category of "terrorist."David:
The reason you don't understand the analogy is you're approaching this from the paradigm that anyone "could" be a terrorist. The reality is that certain people "are" terrorists. And, they fit into a nice little subgroup that can be identified. Even Hillary Clinton ascribes to this reality.Work with me. Please answer the question, as it expands into a larger picture. Stephanie:
To be fair you never answered my question, but I'll be cooperative... I'm just wondering why you think that "certain people" are terrorists when yeah certain people are terrorists, white people are terrorists, non-muslims are terrorists... why is no one in our country trying to keep out the French, who had members of their country specifically identified as terrorists??

David:
I answered your question with a question, which you still have not answered. You likely fear the question is a trap, which it is. I'm posing a series of questions designed to illustrate illogical thinking. I'll walk you through it, if you'd like. Or, we can move on to sort this out in a different way.

You see, you claim that non-muslims are ISIS terrorists, and yet that isn't true. Some of the ISIS terrorists were Belgium citizens, but they were still radical Islamic jihadists. None were Christian. None were Jewish. None were Hindu.

Stephanie:
ISIS works under the system of converting people and roping them in and convincing them to join their group, this includes isolated, non-muslim, people in America or other places around the world.

David:
Right. They convince them to become radical Islamic terrorists. You have to drink their brand of Kool-aid to join the club.

Stephanie:
Last week in my Journalism class, we watched a video about a teenager in the middle of the US who lived on a farm and wanted to learn more about ISIS, because she genuinely did not understand the situation. A man who lived in England contacted her via Twitter and became her "friend." This man had been arrested many times and bomb manuals were found in his apartment. The girl said that she would like to visit him, but she could not fathom being away from her family, and that is why she did not go. The point is that it is so easy for people anywhere around the world to be manipulated by potential terrorists if they feel isolated and unconnected from the people and the world around them. So if anyone around the world can become terrorists, then why are we only scared of Syrian refugees, who are simply fleeing the same thing that America is so afraid of: ISIS. It is a risk to let the refugees in. but it is a simple fact that you cannot prevent terror. You cannot prevent people from being violent and terrorizing others. These kinds of people can be found everywhere, no matter what their gender, skin tone, religious affiliation, age, etc.

David:
It isn't refugees we are concerned about. It's terrorists. Unfortunately, ISIS has already made it clear they are planning to infiltrate refugee groups to enter countries they could not get into easily using other methods. And so far, all of the terrorists of ISIS have been radical Islamist. You are wrong in saying that religious affiliation does not matter.

Stephanie:
Why does religious affiliation matter? ISIS does not represent all of muslims. There are 1.3 billion muslims in the world, so are we to assume they are affiliated with ISIS because they belong to the Islamic religion? But my main point of the story was that there is absolutely no point from keeping out refugees or even muslims even if they have been infiltrated, there are already terrorists in America.

David:
You're assuming (or alleging) that anyone who wants to screen refugees a bit closer is unable to delineate a small radical group from the larger Islamic community. Which means you have already assumed that anyone who disagrees with your point must be stupid. None of that is true. All of the followers of Islam are certainly not terrorists. However, all of the terrorists appear to have been radical Islamic jihadists. It is the one thing that drives them. It's the ideology that is the cause they are fighting for. To understand them, to fight them, we need to acknowledge the facts.

Stephanie:
Well okay I never said anyone who disagrees with my point must be stupid just to make that completely clear.. never said that. I see your point, but this is true with any extremists, right? Not all Christians are murderers; however, all members of the KKK are Christian.

David:
In the same sense, I never said that you used the word "stupid". You inferred the idea.

I'm not sure why you assume that anyone in the KKK is a Christian. The KKK is definitely not a Christian group. In fact, they were attacking Catholics at the height of their terror in the early 20th century. They certainly don't exhibit any characteristics of the Christian faith.

Stephanie:
The thing is, you could say the same exact thing about ISIS!! Here, the KKK leader claims to be a Christian group:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/virginia-kkk-fliers_n_5008647.html
But in the completely credible wikipedia link you posted, it says that "virtually every Christian denomination denounced the KKK." So, why can we not think of ISIS the same way? Yes, ISIS claims to be an Islamic organization, but any Muslim person can tell you that the Islamic religion is one of peace and does not promote the things that ISIS is doing. Again, it's how a person individually interprets a religion, so the KKK leader or other members interpret their version of Christianity in a violent way because they are violent people and the members of ISIS interpret their version of Islam in a violent way because they, too, are violent people.

David:
But back to the discussion, since anyone could become a criminal, should you not take any precautions to prevent becoming a victim of crime? If you know criminals are planning to use a certain ruse to break into your home, say, as a door-to-door salesman, shouldn't you take extra precaution in answering your door for a door-to-door salesman?

Stephanie:
That's a nice idea, but imagine ISIS plans an attack using terrorists posing as Roman Catholics and 300 people are killed in, I don't know, the Vatican. So what do you do now, ban all Roman Catholics from coming into America even though they're fleeing from the same thing that we are so afraid of? That's the first question and if the answer is yes to banning roman catholics, then you have to wonder, how do you identify someone as roman catholic or not?

David:
A radical Islamic terrorist posing as a Roman Catholic is still a radical Islamic terrorist. The wolf does not become a sheep by putting on sheep's clothes. So, the hunt is not for Catholics (or the French), but remains a hunt for radical Islamic terrorist, no matter how they appear, or what role they assume. It is likely they will modify their strategies at some point, and it will be important for intelligence agencies to continue to watch for this.

Stephanie:
Well, I have to ask again, how do you identify a person of Islamic faith, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist? Also I have to wonder why we even stick the word "Islamic" in there? Yes, ISIS claims to be working for the justice of their religion, but the ideals they hold are not the same as most other Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace, just like all other religions, so despite ISIS' own claims, I always wonder why we don't just call them radical terrorists instead of giving the entire Islamic religion a terrible name. No one calls those who shoot up abortion clinics radical Christian terrorists do they?

Stephanie:
To be fair, Obama was calling out certain politicians' obvious islamophobia. Jeb Bush said that we should only let in Christian refugees... Why? Because muslims=terrorists? I think the screening of the refugees is a controversial issue, but our president had good reason to call out those politicians. There's a difference between being islamophobic and having other reasons and concerns behind not allowing Syrians into our country.

David:
Jeb Bush does not equal all Republicans. You might mention to the President that he should not paint with such a large brush.
I don't believe any candidate from either party has advocated not allowing Syrian refugees into the country (although Dr. Carson has noted from his visit to Jordan that none of the refugees really want to leave the region). A bipartisan majority of Congress has passed a bill asking for additional scrutiny of refugees, before they come into the country. Each of them represents constituents back in their home districts. Are they all "obvious Islamophobes"? Because that would include a majority of Americans. If I said President Obama obviously hated Christians because he hasn't done anything to stop their genocide at the hands of ISIS, I would hope you would point out that one does not equal the other. The majority of the terrorists have been radical muslim men between the ages of 18-50. Could other demographics be terrorists? Sure. But subjecting this particular group to extra scrutiny would likely catch most of the bad actors. That doesn't equal a hatred or fear of ALL muslims. One doesn't equal the other, you see.

Stephanie:
First of all, how do you prove if someone is Muslim or not?! Second of all, genocide means "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Not to disrupt your view or anything, but there is no genocide of Christians occurring... ISIS is actually targeting Shi'ia Muslims as well as anyone else who is not following their particular version of Sunni Islam.

David:
CNN disagrees with you. Christians are being specifically targeted for death.

Stephanie:
I have to disagree with you despite the article. I mean, did you even read it? It says, "Of course, Christians aren't the only ones who have suffered at the hands of such organizations. For example, most victims of ISIS are fellow Muslims who refuse to go along with the ISIS worldview and ruthless tactics." I would hardly call that genocide of Christians. While Christians fit under my previously mentioned category of "anyone else who is not following their particular version of Sunni Islam," I'm not inclined to believe an article who's only evidence is politicians saying "I think." That isn't solid proof for me.

David:
I'll give you a quick example from history: During WW II, The Nazis were at war with everyone but the Italians and the Japanese. They were killing millions of people all across Europe. Yet, during this same war, they were also targeting the Jews for extermination. You can commit genocide against a minority group while waging a larger war against others. The fact that ISIS is killing other Muslims doesn't change the fact they are specifically targeting Christians for death. Did you not see the following story?

Stephanie:
They are killing Christians, I agreed with you there, but I, again, would hardly call that genocide.

David:
You do realize that the final "S" in ISIS stands for "Syria" don't you? Their own name tells you where they're coming from.

Stephanie:
I think the name means a bit more than that, and again, I reiterate, I, personally, feel as though we should move away from using that name. But I just wanted to point out that it's not as simple as saying S stands for Syria:

David:
Although this article is interesting, I'm surprised you're a subscriber to "InfoWars.com".

Stephanie:
Not a subscriber, just did a little googling!

David:
The article points out the historical territories of the ancient world, but I'm pointing out that within the current boundaries of Syria is where ISIS themselves have said they plan to establish their caliphate. And, it's the location where all of their recruits, both here and abroad, are trying to reach for training. They are spreading throughout the Middle-East, but their base is Syria.

Stephanie:
And by the way Bush saying that he would only let in Christian Syrians is Islamaphobic because how do you prove if someone is Christian vs. Muslim???? and even though the majority of the terrorists have been Muslim men between the ages of 18-50 there are still terrorists who are not Muslim, not men, and ages 0-17 and 50+... so you will always be letting in terrorists even if you do refuse to let in Muslim men between the ages of 18-50 (which I, again, remind you, is impossible to tell the religion of someone by looking or even asking).

David:
Jeb Bush is in the unenviable position of being the early front-runner who has disappointed all expectations. Utterly. He is likely trying to gain some traction, any traction, by saying something to get some attention. These words will likely return to haunt him, if he stays in the race past the initial primaries.

Now, if 98/100 terrorists are young, male, radical Islamic jihadists, and 2 are not, should you not still remain focused on the likelihood that the next terror threat is going to be perpetrated by a young, male, radical Islamic jihadist? You'd be foolish to fail to keep that as your focus.

And how do you tell what someone's beliefs are? Most of us (and the majority of the terrorists) have left a long trail through the internet, their associations, and their phone records. By looking through my social media, you can tell a great deal about my interests and beliefs. Same for you. It's the same for radical jihadis, who use social media to recruit new members. That's why it is imperative that our intelligence continue to monitor suspects, suspected groups, and social media.

President Obama has a goal of making this a political issue. He has stated Republicans are as bad (or worse) than terrorist. But in this instance, it's members of his own party who are on the side of Republicans and cautious people everywhere in the country.

Stephanie:
Well, is this not a political issue? Also, Obama did not say Republicans=terrorists. Obama said that the GOP is doing the terrorist's job for them. Let me simplify this. This means that the terrorist's job is to instill terror into American's hearts. By refusing refugees, we are admitting that we are afraid to let, not just terrorists, but anybody into our country. By doing this we are doing their job for them. We cannot fight terrorism with fear or with these bizarre ways to "protect" ourselves (which aren't actually protecting us from anything!!).

David:
National security should not be a political issue. Again, no one (Democrat or Republican) has refused refugees. Creating a policy to screen refugees to the best of our ability before we let them in is common sense. A bipartisan majority in Congress agrees with that plan, as well as a majority of Americans. It's just that simple.

Keeping terrorists out of the country doesn't seem that bizarre, and seems a very effective way of protecting ourselves.

Stephanie:
The thing is, we already screen refugees! I'm confused as to how you would increase that screening? Everyone agrees that national security is extremely important, but whether to allow (specifically Syrian) refugees in or ban them from entering is a political issue that everyone (Democrat, Republican, and everyone in between) has been discussing.

David:
You can read the bipartisan bill that passed the House to see how the screening can be improved.
As to President Obama, he and his staff have compared Republicans to terrorists on more than one occasion. That isn't the type of rhetoric that leads to compromise or progress.

Stephanie:
Again, I see no direct quotes of Pfeiffer comparing Republicans to terrorists?? I need direct proof accompanying such a wild accusation. You try over and over again to say "Obama thinks Republicans are terrorists" and yet I still see nothing that supports this claim.

David:
If you can't see that describing someone having a "bomb strapped to their chest" is analogous to a suicide bomber, then nothing I can say will convince you.

Stephanie:
Maybe I didn't understand the article, but I didn't see the context for that quote or whether or not it was about Republicans... You can keep slipping in Obama's name in this, but I have yet to see evidence that he himself has made these comparisons. One member of his staff who had 2 strokes recently is not enough to convince me that "President Obama and his staff" are comparing Republicans to terrorists.David:
If you try to simplify President Obama's rhetoric any further, you'd have to write in crayon.

And now Hillary Clinton has listed Republicans as her "enemy". Not ISIS, but Republicans. But I'm sure she'll apologize and work hard with them if she were to become president.

Deciding who is really our enemy, and doing what needs to be done to protect Americans from them, may ultimately be the deciding factor for who gets to be the next POTUS.

Stephanie:
To be fair, Clinton seemed to be joking at this little remark, and I'm sure there are many GOP candidates who would make similar seemingly meaningless claims.

David:
She certainly does make a lot of meaningless claims, to be sure.

So, do we agree that we should screen refugees as well as we possibly can before we bring them into the country? Do we agree that ISIS is an enemy of civilized folks the world over? Will we do another blog together? And will your dad get coal for Christmas again this year?

Stephanie:
My rhetorical question is: what does "as well as we possibly can" mean? We do agree that ISIS is a threat to most people who do not agree with their brand of Sunni Islam. We should do another blog together, maybe one I know more about, I'm pretty ignorant on most things involving the middle-east. And yes, I have informed Santa to send lots of coal this year!

1 comment:

Update: John Kerry and the Obama Administration took their sweet time about it, but finally agreed with me. ISIS IS committing genocide in their targeting and killing of Christians. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean the administration is going to do anything about it. They just wanted to finally come out and say what everyone else already knew. It's a small, baby step, but at least they're finally moving in the right direction. Remember, Obama said he was going to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. So far, he's called them names. Take that, ISIS!